Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
The communist ideology was built as a parody of Christianity. Marx is the prophet, Lenin is the messiah, and Stalin is the emperor who established the doctrine. There were their own martyrs (for example, Pavlik Morozov), there were their own holy relics – the mausoleum, there were their own sacred texts – the works of classics. They had their own councils – party congresses. There were heretics and schismatics of their own – Trotsky, Bukharin, and others. Howl symbol of faith-the moral code of the builder of communism. And then everything collapsed overnight. I think that in non-Christian countries there were similarities with the main religions of the country.
In fact, the first communists were still Anabaptists, and the father of socialism is the preacher Robert Owen.
Bertrand Russell, in the introduction to his History of Western Philosophy, refers these idealistic, platonic, reformist ideologies to fundamentalism, which arises in an eternal confrontation with traditionalism, like the confrontation between children and fathers.
The reason for this confrontation is the victim's defensive psychological reaction, which removes her responsibility for making decisions. This response is based on the physiological mechanism of saving energy, 25% of which is spent on brain function. Making decisions on your own and taking responsibility for their results is very energy-intensive.
Ideologies and religions allow you to shift responsibility. Traditionalists shift responsibility to the authorities, and fundamentalists (neoliberals) – to the collective. The liberal (humanist) half-hearted ideology of the renaissance and Enlightenment tries to maintain a middle ground between the two extremes, thereby causing hatred on both sides.
Truth. For that Christianity, communism, and all the other religious ideas are one desire, one process that drives the brain to create all these ideas. Containing the desires: sweet to eat, sweet to sleep, to be happy, loved, healthy � – PEOPLE. And finally, if you are lucky, a direct road to paradise, to new fertile pastures, with milk rivers, jelly banks and ageless nymphs. Neither one nor the other, in our reality, the truth is not noticed, does not happen, one continuous fuss around the trough of human goods, from which everyone tries to snatch a fatter, sweeter piece. And all this under the guise of this or that idea ,as if for the good of the neighbor, being happy for him. Therefore, the idea of Christianity, like communism, remains only an idea, and not an existing reality.
The development of the idea of communism was influenced by the elementary need for public safety.
The more significant the stratification of society, including by economic criteria , the higher the level of mutual distrust and social tension, with all the ensuing consequences: crime, falling labor productivity, demographic problems, etc.
Societies with comparable incomes for different population groups and equal access to resources are the most prosperous, as is clearly demonstrated by, say, modern Norway or Denmark.
I would not say that communism is derived from religion: communism itself is a kind of religion, because it personifies an ideal world, the existence of which in reality is impossible…
I will answer from the point of view of Marxism.
Religion is a way of social reflection of reality, depending on the surrounding reality.
If there is a deity – it is impossible to prove or refute this fact, you can believe it, but it is absolutely impossible to draw any conclusions about the surrounding reality on this basis-then the deities that we worship are definitely invented by people.
Religion has evolved along with real society. At the primitive level of development, society is dominated by the deification of physical objects, then, as development progresses, spirits. Gradually, with the development of tribal society into tribal society (and above), aspects of people's life are distinguished, and not just various places and objects, and “spirits” (houses, ancestors) are poured out into gods (agriculture, hunting, patron gods of tribes, etc.).
The formation of states from associations of related tribes sometimes led to monotheism. Sometimes (for example, in Persia) the “number” of gods (and the abstractness of their roles) was reduced only because religion began to fully fulfill the role of reflection of reality (took the place of science), and sometimes society had no other option but to increase the number of gods and further complicate the religious system (India).
One way or another, all these examples show that religion is an aspect of the development of society, a part of the dependent social structure of public consciousness.
Christianity as a religion was born as a reflection of the anti-slavery views of slaves in the Roman Empire. The very “Revelation” of John the Theologian is most likely a hidden political action against Roman power – it should be remembered that the Roman Empire in the eyes of all people was already eternal, which means that its fall could only occur with the end of the world. In particular, this is also indicated by the main version of the origin of the number of the beast 666(or 616) (the numerical value of the phrase “emperor Nero”).
It should be revealed in more detail that the anti-slavery views of illiterate slaves automatically implied an alternative. The alternative was the lives of their long-time ancestors (and wild neighbors outside the Roman Empire), who had no ownership of any production facilities, and therefore people were equal by default.
Thus, without hoping for the establishment of justice in the world below (since even an absolutely illiterate person understands that where there is already slavery, most likely, there will be no return to the tribal system), Christians counted on justice in the world above.
Christianity differs from other religions only in that it spread among the most rapidly developing societies, Christianity contracted feudalism the fastest, and then society passed (this is important!) towards capitalism. However, this does not mean that the speed of development was influenced by religion.
As for the creation of the communist ideology, Christianity made its contribution, but in its place could have been any other religion, because some aspects had to be rethought from scratch.
For example, classical Christianity is based on a metaphysical rather than dialectical philosophy (i.e., everything is considered unchangeable and eternal by default); in disputes, zealous representatives of Christianity very rarely appeal to the processes of development, preferring to refer to “eternal” or at least relevant categories. (To make sure of this, you can watch some program like “I don't believe” on the Spas channel, and follow the arguments of a believing opponent)
And for the dialectic underlying Marxism (which, on the contrary, teaches us to look not at things, but at their “movement” – at their development), Eastern religions would be much more successful.
The communist ideology grows out of the contradictory development of capitalism, out of the contradiction between the social character of production and the private character of appropriation (there is only one oligarch, and everyone works for him, and directly through the entire social production system). Any society (no matter what religion prevails in it!) as soon as it grows up to mature capitalism, it is on the threshold of discovering communist ideas.
Let's first understand what communism is and what Christianity is, highlight some definitions, describe and compare. Communism can be defined as:
1) The actual historical practice of the existence of societies of people without private ownership of the means of production, as well as micro-societies (subcommunities, communities) without private property or with severely weakened private property (primitive societies, Essene communities, Christian communities, Russian peasant communities with land redistribution, artels in a pool with an equal contribution, etc.).;
2) Communist ideologies – that is, ideologies that theoretically denied the existence of private property and class society and called for revolution – the abolition of private property and the reconstruction of class society on the basis of equality (early utopian socialism, Christian socialism, Marxism, anarchocommunism, anarchocollectivism, left-wing Eurasianism, etc.)
Christianity is a monotheistic religion, which in its core contains three main statements-God is the creator of everything that exists out of nothing, God is essentially a Trinity – that is, Three Hypostases in One Essence, The Second Hypostasis of the One God Jesus Christ came, incarnated on Earth and saved humanity from evil, sin and death, and now the task of humanity is to accept and follow Christ.
As we can see, Christianity itself does not contain any mandatory communism in its dogma. But if we take a close look at the economic practices of the early Christians, the early Cenobitic monasteries, and the writings of the Church Fathers, we will see the following. People's personal property is not condemned anywhere, nor is wealth. But it is also said about wealth that it can make it difficult to enter the Kingdom of Heaven (“It is difficult for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of Heaven”). Why is it difficult? Because Christianity of the era of Ecumenical Councils denies the idea of private property as the idea of absolute ownership of anything. This is condemned as a sin of avarice, because God owns everything – He is the sovereign and He gives life to a person and all gifts come from Him. Here comes the possibility of Christian socialism. But this opportunity has never been realized in history. At first, common property and the absence of private property were transferred from worldly life to monasteries, and then monasteries became more “proprietary” than before. The teachings of Christian socialism first arise within heretical communities, in which they are mixed with Gnosticism and represent the opposite of the original Christianity, property is blamed not because it makes it difficult for man to move towards God, but because “everything material is evil, because it was created by the evil demiurge.” Then there is the Christian utopian socialism of the same T. More, but T. More tried to make it attractive to all people, Christians and non-Christians, and removed all hints of Christianity from his utopia, which ruined the original idea. Later, in the French socialism of the eighteenth century, some Christian motives appear, but this all looks frivolous. In Russia, Christian socialism is an early Ern, Bulgakov, and Sventsitsky movement, and this trend appears already in the beginning. Of the twentieth century, when it could not change anything.
The development of secular or atheistic communism was certainly influenced by Christianity. Thus, it influenced the communism of Karl Marx (Kautsky), narodnik socialism (Lavrov, Tkachev), and anarchocommunism and anarchocollectivism (Kropotkin, Bakunin). But at the same time, secular or atheistic communists denied this influence and reduced Christianity itself to a quasi-communist teaching, deducing it from the desire of people for justice and equality (I wonder why then Christianity did not call for a radical reorganization of Roman society), thereby denying the essence of Christian socialism. But if atheistic communists could tolerate religion, they could not tolerate the Church, because they considered the Church part of the old feudal-bourgeois order, along with the tsarist power. Hence their anti-clericalism, their struggle with the Church. If before the revolution (see “Socialism and Religion” by V. I. Lenin) the atheist communists still had a choice-they had a negative attitude towards the Church, but at the same time they had a positive or neutral attitude towards religion, but after the revolution and during the civil war they had no choice, because part of the Church went to the whites and actively blessed the whites for armed struggle (despite the direct ban of the patriarch to do this in 1919). Therefore, after the war, the first “mild” part of the persecution of active believers and clergy took place, coinciding with the campaign to seize church valuables. But later, in the 1929-30s, when the conservative part of the clergy began to actively resist collectivization on the ground, the patience of the Soviet government broke down and direct terror began. Already in 1929-31, a mass of active believers and priests was repressed, in 1937-38, the second phase of terror began (up to 40 thousand believers per year, about 80 thousand active believers in two years). According to my calculations, about 90% of priests were repressed (and there were about 51 thousand of them after the civil war in Russia), 14 thousand were shot (in church literature there are figures of 300 thousand). there are no references to the archives or arguments to them, personally, in a polemic with me, when some religious ” historians “called me all sorts of things and” hidden atheists ” and so on, they agreed before the argument that in the 20s and 30s, bishops ordained up to 250 thousand priests while in exile and prisons, that is, 4-5 priests a month, hence the figure of 300 thousand killed).
Now, of course, it is not customary to talk about the connection between communism and Christianity at all, in today's society this is taboo. For some time, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation tried to talk about this topic – but it was all toothless, mainly on the principle of “don't beat me, I'm a good party, I realized that the priests were not to blame, I'm good, don't touch me, I have believers in the composition.” It looked very, very pathetic. From time to time, the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church make “battle speeches” about the “damned Bolsheviks” who destroyed the “beautiful Russian Empire”. But they are mostly ritual in nature and are made more in order to make friends with the authorities. Ordinary clergy (priests) in general have a strongly negative attitude to the ideas of communism, which is understandable, since there are many people from the spiritual environment among them, they have nothing to love the Soviet government for, and it is difficult to love the government that exiled, sent to camps and prisons, or executed your relatives. Another part of those who are even more irreconcilable to any left-wing idea are ” dissident priests “or” church liberals”, who generally came to the Church from the kitchens of intellectuals, where they smashed the” damned scoop ” and here the hatred is liberal-ideological (for freedom of speech, so to speak, and against the tired dictatorship). Ordinary believers in general are either monarchists, liberals, or eclectic (that is, they mix different things in their minds with each other). On the left side, the one to the left of the Communist Party, militant atheism is gradually reviving, the Church is accused of the sins of the government of the 90s, on the grounds that it “was not with the people”, which means “crush it”. This is also psychologically understandable. Most of these organizations are young people from the poor or middle class, and they also have nothing to love about the Church (they do not have any missionary activity, they only see it on TV and when they need to compliment the authorities again, and they mostly see bishops). Such are the cases. On the one hand, there is no awareness of the tragedy of the Church in the 20s and 30s, or of the tragedy of the people in the 80s and 90s on the other hand. Dialogue is not possible, or it is a dialogue between a blind person and a deaf person. There are not many Christian socialists, and if there are any, the environment will either force you to say that they are not socialists, that this is incompatible with sound Christian teaching, or on the other hand it will reproach you that “you are a socialist, and you associate with all sorts of Christians, defenders of the bourgeois scum and those who have sold your country to pieces.” There were examples, I talked with such people. One of them is now on TV Orthodox tells how beautiful RI was and how bad the Bolsheviks were, who thwarted the victory of the God-saved empire already in two wars – in the Russo-Japanese, and in the First World War. And all because of the Bolsheviks came out, and then we would have ugh!… we showed everyone…�
P.S. This is of course a very crude, clumsy picture on my part. There's a lot more to say here. And about the schism of the Church in the 1920s into three trends, and about the schisms of the Bolsheviks in relation to the Church, and about the dual policy of J. V. Stalin, and about local radicalism, and then about the turn to the “Ecumenical Orthodox Council” and about the late restrictions on church activity in Deut. 40x, and about the “Khrushchev persecutions” and about the” Brezhnev ” struggle with church Christians-dissidents, and about perestroika, and about the Russian Christian Democratic Party and its ecumenical wing, but I'm afraid I'm not an expert here. A good, high-quality Church historian is needed here. Without the” zeal ” of the church and without atheistic pathos working (where can I get it).
Yes there is no connection really. Considering that Marxists considered (and still consider) Christianity to be one of the manifestations of evil. You know the left's attitude to religion. It contradicts scientific progress and is only a sweet delusion, created for the management and exploitation of the low classes by priests, most often rich, belonging to the high class of the clergy. Any strong ideology will have similar features, which will also be expressed in countering ideological enemies, eliminating them, and identifying them. In any strong ideology, there is always a system of rewards in the form of ranks, ranks and titles for the most active members. Based on these common features of most strong ideologies, it is impossible to conclude that they adopt each other's methods, and even more so ideas. From the same point of view, it is absurd to consider leftist ideas as a religion. And here there is a serious contradiction. Marxism is based on discrimination based on class contradictions. An ideology that benefits by playing on people's differences. Similar traits to Christians are only sympathy for the poor, raising their status and disdain for luxury and money. Otherwise, nothing in common. At the same time, Christianity was popular among the aristocracy, and leftist ideas were never, well, extremely rare. Islam or Christianity is a feudal worldview, which achieved its greatest flourishing in the Middle Ages, and even now tries to preserve the mores and customs of those times. Both Islam and Christianity are systems of centralized, monarchical power, and the ideas of communism are closer to anarchist, where the complete overthrow of monarchs, and at the same time all aristocrats, is on the agenda. For Lenin and all the Bolsheviks, the Russian Orthodox Church was seen as a reactionary, archaic relic, part of an ancient, imperial system that needed to be bayoneted into a coffin. If you tell a Marxist socialist about the origin of Communism from Christianity, he will think you are a madman and an ideological enemy who is spreading dangerous slander. If you tell this idea to a Christian, he will either take offense at you, or he will also consider you a mentally ill and ideological enemy spreading sinful lies. Well, for a long time, Christian fanatics and devout communists were bumped foreheads, shedding each other's blood, which only further indicates that there is no connection between them. And the Buddhists are not in any way at all, they are alien to politics in principle, they never seek an active civic position, the idea of removing caste differences is not close to communism, since left-wing ideas are based not on removing class differences, not on equality of all, but on the ever – increasing role of the low class of hard workers-the dictatorship of the proletariat. At the same time, it is desirable that a hunted and small class of the bourgeoisie, aristocracy and clergy still remain in society. Completely squeezing them all means losing the levers of profitable influence. If only hard workers remain, then it will not be possible to spread the proletarian dictatorship. No one will be afraid of it.�
Regarding Hindus and Buddhists, I will write a separate paragraph.�
According to the State of India Report 2011, most Hindus often vote for left-wing parties, just as Buddhists, if at all, often vote for left-wing parties. There are not many Buddhists left in India, almost a minority, but there are an absolute majority of Hindus there. In India, religion and politics are so strongly connected that any candidate for the largest party – the Indian National Congress (they position themselves as conservative, Vedic, Social Democrats), seeks to enlist the support of the religious majority, and the religious majority is represented by almost all citizens from children to the elderly. All candidates openly and in advance disclose their religious and caste affiliation. If necessary, some parties (India is one of the most multiparty countries) have an official name in honor of supporting individual religious groups.�